first 25 cases in administrative law (without ruperto vs. torre)
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
1/268
G.R. No. 90336 August 12, 1991
RUPERTO TAULE, petitioner,
vs.
SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS and GOERNORLEAN!RO ERCELES, respondents.
Balgos & Perez and Bugaring, Tugonon & Associates
Law Ofces or petitioner.
Juan G. Atencia or private respondent.
GANCAYCO,J.:p
The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local
Government over the atipunan ng !ga "aranga#or
the barangay councils is brought to the fore in this
case.
On June 1,1!!, the "ederation of #ssociations of
$arangay %ouncils &"#$%' of %atanduanes, composed
of eleven &11' members, in their capacities as(residents of the #ssociation of $arangay %ouncils in
their respective municipalities, convened in )irac,
%atanduanes *ith six members in attendance for the
purpose of holding the election of its o+cers.
(resent *ere petitioner uperto Taule of San -iguel,
#llan #uino of )iga, )icente #vila of )irac, "idel Jacob
of (anganiban, Leo Sales of %aramoran and -anuel
Torres of $aras. The $oard of /lection
Supervisors0%onsultants *as composed of (rovincial
Government Operation O+cer &(GOO' #lberto (.
-olina, Jr. as %hairman *ith (rovincial Treasurer Luis #.
-anlapa, Jr. and (rovincial /lection Supervisor #rnoldSouerata as members.
2hen the group decided to hold the election despite
the absence of 3ve &4' of its members, the (rovincial
Treasurer and the (rovincial /lection Supervisor *al5ed
out.
The election nevertheless proceeded *ith (GOO
#lberto (. -olina, Jr. as presiding o+cer. %hosen as
members of the $oard of 6irectors *ere Taule, #uino,
#vila, Jacob and Sales.
Thereafter, the follo*ing *ere elected o+cers of the
"#$%7
(resident 8 uperto Taule
)ice9(resident 8 #llan #uino
Secretary 8 )icente #vila
Treasurer 8 "idel Jacob
#uditor 8 Leo Sales 1
On June 1!, 1!!, respondent Leandro :. )erceles,
Governor of %atanduanes, sent a letter to respondent
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
2/268
Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local
Government,"protesting the election of the o+cers of
the "#$% and see5ing its nulli3cation in vie* of several
;agrant irregularities in the manner it *as
conducted.2
:n compliance *ith the order of respondent Secretary,
petitioner uperto Taule as (resident of the "#$%, 3led
his comment on the letter9protest of respondent
Governor denying the alleged irregularities and
denouncing said respondent Governor for meddling or
intervening in the election of "#$% o+cers *hich is a
purely non9partisan as, petitioner see5s
the reversal of the resolutions of respondent Secretary
dated #ugust =, 1!! and September 4, 1!! for
being null and void.
(etitioner raises the
follo*ing issues7
1' 2hether or not the respondent
Secretary has ?urisdiction to entertain an
election protest involving the election of
the o+cers of the "ederation of
#ssociation of $arangay %ouncils@
A' 2hether or not the respondent
Governor has the legal personality to 3le
an election protest@
B' #ssuming that the respondent
Secretary has ?urisdiction over the
election protest, *hether or not he
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lac5 of ?urisdiction in
nullifying the election@
The $atipunan ng !ga Baranga#is the organiation ofall sangguniang "aranga#sin the follo*ing levels7 in
municipalities to be 5no*n as atipunang "a#an@ in
cities, atipunang panlungsod@ in
provinces, atipunang panlalawigan@ in
regions,atipunang pa!poo@ and on the national
level, atipunan ng !ga "aranga#. 6
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
3/268
The Local Government %ode provides for the manner
in *hich the atipunan ng !ga "aranga#at all levels
shall be organied7
Sec. 11C. Organization. 8 &1' The5atipunan at all levels shall be organied
in the follo*ing manner7
&a' The 5atipunan in each level shall elect
a board of directors and a set of o+cers.
The president of each level shall
represent the 5atipunan concerned in the
next higher level of organiation.
&b' The 5atipunan ng mga barangay shall
be composed of the 5atipunang pampoo5,
*hich shall in turn be composed of the
presidents of the 5atipunang
panlala*igan and the 5atipunang
panlungsod. The presidents of the
5atipunang bayan in each province shall
constitute the 5atipunang panlala*igan.
The 5atipunang panlungsod and the
5atipunang bayan shall be composed ofthe punong barangays of cities and
municipalities, respectively.
xxx xxx xxx
The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance *ith
the provision of the Local Government %ode
empo*ering him to Dpromulgate in detail the
implementing circulars and the rules and regulations
to carry out the various administrative actions reuired
for the initial implementation of this %ode in such a
manner as *ill ensure the least disruption of on9going
programs and pro?ects%
issued 6epartment of LocalGovernment %ircular Eo. !9C! on #pril F, 1!!, &to
provide the guidelines for the conduct of the elections
of o+cers of the $atipunan ng !ga Baranga#at the
municipal, city, provincial, regional and national levels.
:t is no* the contention of petitioner that neither the
constitution nor the la* grants ?urisdiction upon the
respondent Secretary over election contests involving
the election of o+cers of the "#$%, the atipunan ng
!ga "aranga#at the provincial level. :t is petitioners
theory that under #rticle :H, %, Section A of the 1!F
%onstitution, it is the %ommission on /lections *hich
has ?urisdiction over all contests involving elective
barangay o+cials.
On the other hand, it is the opinion of the respondent
Secretary that any violation of the guidelines as set
forth in said circular *ould be a ground for 3ling a
protest and *ould vest upon the 6epartment?urisdiction to resolve any protest that may be 3led in
relation thereto.
>nder #rticle :H, %, Section A&A' of the 1!F
%onstitution, the %ommission on /lections shall
exercise Dexclusive original ?urisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
uali3cations of all elective regional, provincial, and
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
4/268
city o+cials, and appellate ?urisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal o+cials decided
by trial courts of general ?urisdiction, or involving
elective barangay o+cials decided by trial courts of
limited ?urisdiction.D The 1!F %onstitution expandedthe ?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% by granting it
appellate ?urisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal o+cials decided by trial courts of
general ?urisdiction or elective barangay o+cials
decided by trial courts of limited ?urisdiction. 9
The ?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% over contests
involving elective barangay o+cials is limited to
appellate ?urisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
>nder the la*, 10the s*orn petition contesting the
election of a barangay o+cer shall be 3led *ith the
proper -unicipal or -etropolitan Trial %ourt by any
candidate *ho has duly 3led a certi3cate of candidacy
and has been voted for the same o+ce *ithin 1C days
after the proclamation of the results. # voter may also
contest the election of any barangay o+cer on the
ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the epublic of
the (hilippines by 3ling a s*orn petition for%uo
warranto*ith the -etropolitan or -unicipal Trial %ourt*ithin 1C days after the proclamation of the results of
the election.11Only appeals from decisions of inferior
courts on election matters as aforestated may be
decided by the %O-/L/%.
The %ourt agrees *ith the Solicitor General that the
?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% is over popular elections,
the elected o+cials of *hich are determined through
the *ill of the electorate. #n election is the
embodiment of the popular *ill, the expression of the
sovereign po*er of the people. 12:t involves the choice
or selection of candidates to public o+ce by popular
vote.13
Speci3cally, the term Delection,D in the contextof the %onstitution, may refer to the conduct of the
polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of
the votes 1#
*hich do not characterie the election of
o+cers in the $atipunan ng !ga "aranga#. D/lection
contestsD *ould refer to adversary proceedings by
*hich matters involving the title or claim of title to an
elective o+ce, made before or after proclamation of
the *inner, is settled *hether or not the contestant is
claiming the o+ce in dispute 1$and in the case of
elections of barangay o+cials, it is restricted to
proceedings after the proclamation of the *inners as
no pre9proclamation controversies are allo*ed.16
The ?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% does not cover
protests over the organiational set9up of the
5atipunan ng mga barangay composed of popularly
electedpunong "aranga#s as prescribed by la* *hose
o+cers are voted upon by their respective members.The %O-/L/% exercises only appellate ?urisdiction over
election contests involving elective barangay o+cials
decided by the -etropolitan or -unicipal Trial %ourts
*hich li5e*ise have limited ?urisdiction. The authority
of the %O-/L/% over the atipunan ng !ga
"aranga#is limited by la* to supervision of the
election of the representative of
theatipunanconcerned to the sanggunianin a
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
5/268
particular level conducted by their o*n respective
organiation. 1%
Io*ever, the Secretary of Local Government is not
vested *ith ?urisdiction to entertain any protestinvolving the election of o+cers of the "#$%.
There is no uestion that he is vested *ith the po*er
to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in
Section AAA of the Local Government %ode.
Li5e*ise, under $oo5 :), Title H::, %hapter 1, See. B&A'
of the #dministrative %ode of 1!F, ""
the respondent
Secretary has the po*er to Destablish and prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances andimplementing la*s on the general supervision of local
government units and on the promotion of local
autonomy and monitor compliance thereof by said
units.D
#lso, the respondent Secretarys rule ma5ing po*er is
provided in See. F, %hapter ::, $oo5 :) of the
#dministrative %ode, to *it7
&B' (romulgate rules and regulations
necessary to carry out department
ob?ectives, policies, functions, plans,
programs and pro?ects@
Thus, 6LG %ircular Eo. !9C! *as issued by
respondent Secretary in pursuance of his rule9ma5ing
po*er conferred by la* and *hich no* has the force
and e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
6/268
supervision is exercised by the (resident through the
Secretary of Local Government. 2#
:n administrative la*, supervision means overseeing or
the po*er or authority of an o+cer to see that thesubordinate o+cers perform their duties. :f the latter
fails or neglects to ful3ll them the former may ta5e
such action or step as prescribed by la* to ma5e them
perform their duties. %ontrol, on the other hand,
means the po*er of an o+cer to alter or modify or
nullify or set aside *hat a subordinate o+cer had done
in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
?udgment of the former for that of the latter. The
fundamental la* permits the %hief /xecutive to *ield
no more authority than that of chec5ing *hether said
local government or the o+cers thereof perform their
duties as provided by statutory enactments. Ience,
the (resident cannot interfere *ith local governments
so long as the same or its o+cers act *ithin the scope
of their authority. 2$Supervisory po*er, *hen
contrasted *ith control, is the po*er of mere oversight
over an inferior body@ it does not include any
restraining authority over such body. 26
%onstruing the constitutional limitation on the po*er of
general supervision of the (resident over local
governments, 2e hold that respondent Secretary has
no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of
the election of the o+cers of the 5atipunan. To allo*
respondent Secretary to do so *ill give him more
po*er than the la* or the %onstitution grants. :t *ill in
e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
7/268
supervision of the Secretary over local governments
*hich as earlier discussed is limited to chec5ing
*hether the local government unit concerned or the
o+cers thereof perform their duties as provided by
statutory enactments. /ven the Local Government%ode *hich grants the Secretary po*er to issue
implementing circulars, rules and regulations is silent
as to ho* these issuances should be enforced. Since
the respondent Secretary exercises only supervision
and not control over local governments, it is truly
doubtful if he could enforce compliance *ith the 6LG
%ircular. 32#ny doubt therefore as to the po*er of the
Secretary to interfere *ith local a
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
8/268
to uestion the regularity of the elections of the
o+cers of the "#$%.
#s to the third issue raised by petitioner, the %ourt has
already ruled that the respondent Secretary has no?urisdiction to hear the protest and nullify the
elections.
Eevertheless, the %ourt holds that the issue of the
validity of the elections should no* be resolved in
order to prevent any unnecessary delay that may
result from the commencement of an appropriate
action by the parties.
The elections *ere declared null and void primarily forfailure to comply *ith Section A.= of 6LG %ircular Eo.
!9C! *hich provides that Dthe incumbent "#$%
(resident or the )ice9(resident sallpreside over the
reorganiational meeting, there being a uorum.D The
rule speci3cally provides that it is the incumbent "#$%
(resident or )ice9(resident *ho shall preside over the
meeting. The *ord DshallD should be ta5en in its
ordinary signi3cation, i.e., it must be imperative or
mandatory and not merelypermissive, 3%as the rule is explicit and reuires no
other interpretation. :f it had been intended that any
other o+cial should preside, the rules *ould have
provided so, as it did in the elections at the to*n and
city levels 3&as *ell as the regional level..39
:t is admitted that neither the incumbent "#$%
(resident nor the )ice9(resident presided over the
meeting and elections but #lberto (. -olina, Jr., the
%hairman of the $oard of /lection
Supervisors0%onsultants. Thus, there *as a clear
violation of the aforesaid mandatory provision. On this
ground, the elections should be nulli3ed.
>nder Sec. A.B.A.F of the same circular it is provided
that a $oard of /lection Supervisors0%onsultants shall
be constituted to oversee and0or *itness the
canvassing of votes and proclamation of *inners. The
rules con3ne the role of the $oard of /lection
Supervisors0%onsultants to merely overseeing and
*itnessing the conduct of elections. This is consistent
*ith the provision in the Local Government %ode
limiting the authority of the %O-/L/% to the
supervision of the election. #0
:n case at bar, (GOO -olina, the %hairman of the
$oard, presided over the elections. There *as direct
participation by the %hairman of the $oard in the
elections contrary to *hat is dictated by the rules.
2orse, there *as no $oard of /lection Supervisors to
oversee the elections in vie* of the *al5 out staged by
its t*o other members, the (rovincial %O-/L/%Supervisor and the (rovincial Treasurer. The ob?ective
of 5eeping the election free and honest *as therefore
compromised.
The %ourt therefore 3nds that the election of o+cers of
the "#$% held on June 1, 1!! is null and void for
failure to comply *ith the provisions of 6LG %ircular
Eo. !9C!.
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
9/268
-ean*hile, pending resolution of this petition,
petitioner 3led a supplemental petition alleging that
public respondent Local Government Secretary, in his
memorandum dated June F, 1!!C, designated #ugusto
#ntonio as temporary representative of the "ederationto the sangguniang panlalawiganof
%atanduanes. #1$y virtue of this memorandum,
respondent governor s*ore into said o+ce #ugusto
#ntonio on June 1=, 1!!C. #2
The Solicitor General 3led his comment on the
supplemental petition #3as reuired by the resolution
of the %ourt dated September 1B,1!!C.
:n his comment, the Solicitor General dismissed thesupervening event alleged by petitioner as something
immaterial to the petition. Ie argues that #ntonios
appointment *as merely temporary Duntil such time
that the provincial "#$% president in that province has
been elected, appointed and uali3ed.D ##Ie stresses
that #ntonios appointment *as only a remedial
measure designed to cope *ith the problems brought
about by the absence of a representative of the "#$%
to the Dsanggunian ang panlala*igan.D
Sec. AC4 &A' of the Local Government %ode &$.(. $lg.
BBF' provides9
&A' The sangguniang panlala*igan shall
be composed of the governor, the vice9
governor, elective members of the said
sanggunian and the presidents of te
atipunang panlalawigan and the
5abataang barangay provincial federation
*ho shall be appointed by the (resident
of the (hilippines. &/mphasis supplied.'
$atas (ambansa $lg. 41, under Sec. A li5e*ise states7
xxx xxx xxx
The sangguniang panlala*igan of each
province shall be composed of the
governor as chairman and presiding
o+cer, the vice9governor as presiding
o+cer pro tempore, the elective
sangguniang panlala*igan members, andthe appointive members consisting of the
president of te provincial association o
"aranga# councils, and the president of
the provincial federation of the 5abataang
barangay. &/mphasis supplied.'
:n 'gnacio vs. Banate Jr. #$the %ourt, interpreting
similarly *orded provisions of $atas (ambansa $lg.
BBF and $atas (ambansa $lg. 41 on the composition ofthe sangguniang panlungsod, #6declared as null and
void the appointment of private respondent Leoncio
$anate Jr. as member of the (angguniang
Panlungsodof the %ity of oxas representing
theatipunang panlungsod ng !ga "aranga#for he
lac5ed the elegibility and uali3cation reuired by la*,
not being a barangay captain and for not having been
elected president of the association of barangay
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
10/268
councils. The %ourt held that an unuali3ed person
cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian,
even in an acting capacity. :n )e#es vs. *errer,#%the
appointment of Eemesio L. asgo Jr. as representative
of the youth sector to the sangguniang panlungsodof6avao %ity *as declared invalid since he *as never
the president of the 5abataang barangay city
federation as reuired by Sec. 1FB, $atas (ambansa
$lg. BBF.
:n the present controversy involving the sangguniang
panlalawigan, the la* is li5e*ise explicit. To be
appointed by the (resident of the (hilippines to sit in
the sangguniang panlalawiganis the president of
the atipunang panlalawigan. The appointee must
meet the uali3cations set by la*. #&The appointing
po*er is bound by la* to comply *ith the
reuirements as to the basic uali3cations of the
appointee to the sangguniang panlalawigan. The
(resident of the (hilippines or his alter ego, the
Secretary of Local Government, has no authority to
appoint anyone *ho does not meet the minimum
uali3cation to be the president of the federation of
barangay councils.
#ugusto #ntonio is not the president of the federation.
Ie is a member of the federation but he *as not even
present during the elections despite notice. The
argument that #ntonio *as appointed as a remedial
measure in the exigency of the service cannot be
sustained. Since #ntonio does not meet the basic
uali3cation of being president of the federation, his
appointment to the sangguniang panlalawiganis not
?usti3ed not*ithstanding that such appointment is
merely in a temporary capacity. :f the intention of the
respondent Secretary *as to protect the interest of the
federation in thesanggunian, he should haveappointed the incumbent "#$% (resident in a hold9over
capacity. "or even under the guidelines, the term of
o+ce of o+cers of the atipunanat all levels shall be
from the date of their election until their successors
shall have been duly elected and uali3ed, *ithout
pre?udice to the terms of their appointments as
members of the sanggunian to *hich they may be
correspondingly appointed. #9Since the election is still
under protest such that no successor of the incumbent
has as yet uali3ed, the respondent Secretary has no
choice but to have the incumbent "#$% (resident sit as
member of the sanggunian. Ie could even have
appointed petitioner since he *as elected the
president of the federation but not #ntonio. The
appointment of #ntonio, allegedly the protege of
respondent Governor, gives credence to petitioners
charge of political interference by respondent
Governor in the organiation. This should not be
allo*ed. The barangays should be insulated from anypartisan activity or political intervention if only to give
true meaning to local autonomy.
2I//"O/, the petition is G#ET/6 in that the
resolution of respondent Secretary dated #ugust =,
1!! is hereby S/T #S:6/ for having been issued in
excess of ?urisdiction.
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
11/268
The election of the o+cials of the #$% "ederation held
on June 1, 1!! is hereby annulled. # ne* election of
o+cers of the federation is hereby ordered to be
conducted immediately in accordance *ith the
governing rules and regulations.
The Supplemental petition is hereby G#ET/6. The
appointment of #ugusto #ntonio as representative to
the(angguniang Panlalawiganin a temporary capacity
is declared null and void.
Eo costs.
SO O6//6.
G.R. No. 110120 'a()* 16, 199#
LAGUNA LA+E !EELOP'ENT
AUTORITY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT O- APPEALS, ON. 'ANUEL N. SERAPIO,
P(/sdng udg/ RTC, (an)* 12%, Caoo)an Ct,
ON. 'ACARIO A. ASISTIO, R., Ct 'ao( o4
Caoo)an and5o( TE CITY GOERN'ENT O-CALOOCAN, respondents.
Al"erto +. idalgo and -a. Teresa T. Oledan or
petitioner.
Te it# Legal Ofcer & ie, Law /epart!ent or
-a#or -acario A. Asistio, Jr. and te it# Govern!ent
o aloocan.
RO'ERO,J.:
The clash bet*een the responsibility of the %ityGovernment of %aloocan to dispose o< the B4C tons of
garbage it collects daily and the gro*ing concern and
sensitivity to a pollution9free environment of the
residents of $arangay %amarin, Tala /state, %aloocan
%ity *here these tons of garbage are dumped
everyday is the hub of this controversy elevated by the
protagonists to the Laguna La5e 6evelopment
#uthority &LL6#' for ad?udication.
The instant case stemmed from an earlier petition 3led*ith this %ourt by Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority
&LL6# for short' doc5eted as G..
Eo. 1CF4=A against the %ity Government of %aloocan,
et al. :n the esolution of Eovember 1C, 1!!A, this
%ourt referred G.. Eo. 1CF4=A to the %ourt of #ppeals
for appropriate disposition. 6oc5eted therein as %#9
G.. S(
Eo. A!==!, the %ourt of #ppeals, in a
decision1
promulgated on January A!, 1!!B ruled thatthe LL6# has no po*er and authority to issue a cease
and desist order en?oining the dumping of garbage in
$arangay %amarin, Tala /state, %aloocan %ity. The
LL6# no* see5s, in this petition, a revie* of the
decision of the %ourt of #ppeals.
The facts, as disclosed in the records, are undisputed.
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
12/268
On -arch , 1!!1, the Tas5 "orce %amarin 6umpsite of
Our Lady of Lourdes (arish, $arangay %amarin,
%aloocan %ity, 3led a letter9complaint2*ith the
Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority see5ing to stop
the operation of the .9hectare open garbagedumpsite in Tala /state, $arangay %amarin, %aloocan
%ity due to its harmful e. "uentes failed to settle the problem.
#fter an investigation by its team of legal and technical
personnel on #ugust 1=, 1!!A, the LL6# issued
another order reiterating the 6ecember 4, 1!!1, order
and issued an #lias %ease and 6esist Order en?oining
the %ity Government of %aloocan from continuing its
dumping operations at the %amarin area.
On September A4, 1!!A, the LL6#, *ith the assistance
of the (hilippine Eational (olice, enforced its #lias
%ease and 6esist Order by prohibiting the entry of all
garbage dump truc5s into the Tala /state, %amarin
area being utilied as a dumpsite.
(ending resolution of its motion for reconsideration
earlier 3led on September 1F, 1!!A *ith the LL6#, the
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
13/268
%ity Government of %aloocan 3led *ith the egional
Trial %ourt of %aloocan %ity an action for the
declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order *ith
prayer for the issuance of *rit of in?unction, doc5eted
as %ivil %ase Eo. %9144!. :n its complaint, the %ityGovernment of %aloocan sought to be declared as the
sole authority empo*ered to promote the health and
safety and enhance the right of the people in %aloocan
%ity to a balanced ecology *ithin its territorial
?urisdiction.9
On September A4, 1!!A, the /xecutive Judge of the
egional Trial %ourt of %aloocan %ity issued a
temporary restraining order en?oining the LL6# from
enforcing its cease and desist order. Subseuently, thecase *as raKed to the egional Trial %ourt, $ranch
1A of %aloocan *hich, at the time, *as presided over
by Judge -anuel Jn. Serapio of the egional Trial %ourt,
$ranch 1AF, the pairing ?udge of the recently9retired
presiding ?udge.
The LL6#, for its part, 3led on October A, 1!!A a
motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that
under epublic #ct Eo. B!B1, as amended by(residential 6ecree Eo. !=, other*ise 5no*n as the
(ollution %ontrol La*, the cease and desist order
issued by it *hich is the sub?ect matter of the
complaint is revie*able both upon the la* and the
facts of the case by the %ourt of #ppeals and not by
the egional Trial %ourt. 10
On October 1A, 1!!A Judge -anuel Jn. Serapio issued
an order consolidating %ivil %ase Eo. %9144! *ith
%ivil %ase Eo. %9144C, an earlier case 3led by the
Tas5 "orce %amarin 6umpsite entitled D"r. John -oran,
et al. vs. Ion. -acario #sistio.D The LL6#, ho*ever,maintained during the trial that the foregoing cases,
being independent of each other, should have been
treated separately.
On October 1, 1!!A, Judge -anuel Jn. Serapio, after
hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the
consolidated cases an order11denying LL6#s motion
to dismiss and granting the issuance of a *rit of
preliminary in?unction en?oining the LL6#, its agent
and all persons acting for and on its behalf, fromenforcing or implementing its cease and desist order
*hich prevents plainti< %ity of %aloocan from dumping
garbage at the %amarin dumpsite during the pendency
of this case and0or until further orders of the court.
On Eovember 4, 1!!A, the LL6# 3led a petition
for certiorari, prohibition and in?unction *ith prayer for
restraining order *ith the Supreme %ourt, doc5eted as
G.. Eo. 1CF4=A, see5ing to nullify the aforesaid orderdated October 1, 1!!A issued by the egional Trial
%ourt, $ranch 1AF of %aloocan %ity denying its motion
to dismiss.
The %ourt, acting on the petition, issued a
esolution12on Eovember 1C, 1!!A referring the case
to the %ourt of #ppeals for proper disposition and at
the same time, *ithout giving due course to the
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
14/268
petition, reuired the respondents to comment on the
petition and 3le the same *ith the %ourt of #ppeals
*ithin ten &1C' days from notice. :n the meantime, the
%ourt issued a temporary restraining order, e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
15/268
thereto, since appeal therefrom is *ithin the exclusive
and appellate ?urisdiction of the %ourt of #ppeals
under Section !, par. &B', of $atas (ambansa $lg. 1A!@
and &A' the Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority has
no po*er and authority to issue a cease and desistorder under its enabling la*, epublic #ct Eo. =4C, as
amended by (.6. Eo. 1B and /xecutive Order
Eo. !AF, series of 1!B.
The %ourt of #ppeals thus dismissed %ivil %ase Eo.
144! and the preliminary in?unction issued in the said
case *as set aside@ the cease and desist order of LL6#
*as li5e*ise set aside and the temporary restraining
order en?oining the %ity -ayor of %aloocan and0or the
%ity Government of %aloocan to cease and desist fromdumping its garbage at the Tala /state, $arangay
%amarin, %aloocan %ity *as lifted, sub?ect, ho*ever, to
the condition that any future dumping of garbage in
said area, shall be in conformity *ith the procedure
and protective *or5s contained in the proposal
attached to the records of this case and found on
pages 14A91C of the )ollo, *hich *as thereby
adopted by reference and made an integral part of the
decision, until the corresponding restraining and0orin?unctive relief is granted by the proper %ourt upon
LL6#s institution of the necessary legal proceedings.
Ience, the Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority 3led
the instant petition for revie* on certiorari, no*
doc5eted as G.. Eo. 11C1AC, *ith prayer that the
temporary restraining order lifted by the %ourt of
#ppeals be re9issued until after 3nal determination by
this %ourt of the issue on the proper interpretation of
the po*ers and authority of the LL6# under its
enabling la*.
On July, 1!, 1!!B, the %ourt issued a temporaryrestraining order16en?oining the %ity -ayor of
%aloocan and0or the %ity Government of %aloocan to
cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala
/state, $arangay %amarin, %aloocan %ity, e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
16/268
*hich the %ity Government of %aloocan has territorial
?urisdiction.
The %ourt of #ppeals sustained the position of the %ity
of %aloocan on the theory that Section F of (residential6ecree Eo. !=, other*ise 5no*n as the (ollution
%ontrol la*, authoriing the defunct Eational (ollution
%ontrol %ommission to issue an e01partecease and
desist order *as not incorporated in (residential
6ecree Eo. 1B nor in /xecutive Order Eo. !AF, series
of
1!B. The %ourt of #ppeals ruled that under Section =,
par. &d', of epublic #ct Eo. =4C, as amended, the
LL6# is instead reuired Dto institute the necessary
legal proceeding against any person *ho shallcommence to implement or continue implementation
of any pro?ect, plan or program *ithin the Laguna de
$ay region *ithout previous clearance from the
#uthority.D
The LL6# no* assails, in this partition for revie*, the
abovementioned ruling of the %ourt of #ppeals,
contending that, as an administrative agency *hich
*as granted regulatory and ad?udicatory po*ers andfunctions by epublic #ct Eo. =4C and its amendatory
la*s, (residential 6ecree Eo. 1B and /xecutive Order
Eo. !AF, series of 1!B, it is invested *ith the po*er
and authority to issue a cease and desist order
pursuant to Section = par. &c', &d', &e', &f' and &g' of
/xecutive Order Eo. !AF series of 1!B *hich provides,
thus7
Sec. =. Additional Powers and *unctions.
The authority shall have the follo*ing
po*ers and functions7
xxx xxx xxx
&c' :ssue orders or decisions to compel
compliance *ith the provisions of this
/xecutive Order and its implementing
rules and regulations only after proper
notice and hearing.
&d' -a5e, alter or modify orders reuiring
the discontinuance of pollution specifying
the conditions and the time *ithin *hichsuch discontinuance must be
accomplished.
&e' :ssue, rene*, or deny permits, under
such conditions as it may determine to be
reasonable, for the prevention and
abatement of pollution, for the discharge
of se*age, industrial *aste, or for the
installation or operation of se*age *or5sand industrial disposal system or parts
thereof.
&f' #fter due notice and hearing, the
#uthority may also revo5e, suspend or
modify any permit issued under this Order
*henever the same is necessary to
prevent or abate pollution.
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
17/268
&g' 6eputie in *riting or reuest
assistance of appropriate government
agencies or instrumentalities for the
purpose of enforcing this /xecutive Order
and its implementing rules andregulations and the orders and decisions
of the #uthority.
The LL6# claims that the appellate court deliberately
suppressed and totally disregarded the above
provisions of /xecutive Order Eo. !AF, series of 1!B,
*hich granted administrative uasi9?udicial functions
to LL6# on pollution abatement cases.
:n light of the relevant environmental protection la*scited *hich are applicable in this case, and the
corresponding overlapping ?urisdiction of government
agencies implementing these la*s, the resolution of
the issue of *hether or not the LL6# has the authority
and po*er to issue an order *hich, in its nature and
e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
18/268
and po*er and authority, the LL6#, by virtue of its
special charter, obviously has the responsibility to
protect the inhabitants of the Laguna La5e region from
the deleterious e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
19/268
To be sure, the LL6# *as not expressly conferred the
po*er Dto issue and e01partecease and desist orderD
in a language, as suggested by the %ity Government of
%aloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct
Eational (ollution %ontrol %ommission under Section Fof (.6. Eo. != *hich, admittedly *as not reproduced
in (.6. Eo. 1B and /.O. Eo. !AF, series of 1!B.
Io*ever, it *ould be a mista5e to dra* therefrom the
conclusion that there is a denial of the po*er to issue
the order in uestion *hen the po*er Dto !ae, alter
or modify orders reuiring the discontinuance of
pollutionD is expressly and clearly besto*ed upon the
LL6# by /xecutive Order Eo. !AF, series of 1!B.
#ssuming arguendothat the authority to issue aDcease and desist orderD *ere not expressly conferred
by la*, there is ?urisprudence enough to the e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
20/268
reuirements of procedural due process
yield to the necessities of protecting vital
public interests li5e those here involved,
through the exercise of police po*er. . . .
The immediate response to the demands of Dthe
necessities of protecting vital public interestsD gives
vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the
6eclaration of (rinciples and State (olicies or the 1!F
%onstitution. #rticle ::, Section 1 *hich provides7
The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology in accord *ith the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
#s a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person,
it carries the correlative duty of non9impairment. This
is but in consonance *ith the declared policy of the
state Dto protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among
them.D2&:t is to be borne in mind that the (hilippines
is party to the >niversal 6eclaration of Iuman ights
and the #lma %onference 6eclaration of 1!F *hichrecognie health as a fundamental human right. 29
The issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist order
by the LL6#, as a practical matter of procedure under
the circumstances of the case, is a proper exercise of
its po*er and authority under its charter and its
amendatory la*s. Iad the cease and desist order
issued by the LL6# been complied *ith by the %ity
Government of %aloocan as it did in the 3rst instance,
no further legal steps *ould have been necessary.
The charter of LL6#, epublic #ct Eo. =4C, as
amended, instead of conferring upon the LL6# themeans of directly enforcing such orders, has provided
under its Section = &d' the po*er to institute
Dnecessary legal proceeding against any person *ho
shall commence to implement or continue
implementation of any pro?ect, plan or program *ithin
the Laguna de $ay region *ithout previous clearance
from the LL6#.D
%learly, said provision *as designed to invest the LL6#
*ith su+ciently broad po*ers in the regulation of allpro?ects initiated in the Laguna La5e region, *hether
by the government or the private sector, insofar as the
implementation of these pro?ects is concerned. :t *as
meant to deal *ith cases *hich might possibly arise
*here decisions or orders issued pursuant to the
exercise of such broad po*ers may not be obeyed,
resulting in the th*arting of its laudabe ob?ective. To
meet such contingencies, then the *rits
of !anda!usand in?unction *hich are beyond thepo*er of the LL6# to issue, may be sought from the
proper courts.
:nsofar as the implementation of relevant anti9pollution
la*s in the Laguna La5e region and its surrounding
provinces, cities and to*ns are concerned, the %ourt
*ill not d*ell further on the related issues raised *hich
are more appropriately addressed to an administrative
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
21/268
agency *ith the special 5no*ledge and expertise of
the LL6#.
2I//"O/, the petition is G#ET/6. The temporary
restraining order issued by the %ourt on July 1!, 1!!Ben?oining the %ity -ayor of %aloocan and0or the %ity
Government of %aloocan from dumping their garbage
at the Tala /state, $arangay %amarin, %aloocan %ity is
hereby made permanent.
SO O6//6.
G.R. No. L13&2% S/7t/8/( 2&, 1962
ENA'IN 'ASANGCAY,petitioner,vs.TE CO''ISSION ON ELECTIONS,respondent.
Godoredo A. )a!os and )u"# (alazar1Al"erto or
petitioner.Ofce o te (olicitor General and /o!inador /. /a#otor respondent.
AUTISTA ANGELO,J.:
$en?amin -asangcay, *ith several others, *as onOctober 1=, 1!4F charged before the %ommission on/lection *ith contempt for having opened three boxesbearing serial numbers l9CF1, l9CFA and l9CFBcontaining o+cial and sample ballots for themunicipalities of the province of #5lan, in violation ofthe instructions of said %ommission embodied in itsresolution promulgated September A, 1!4F, and itsunnumbered resolution date -arch 4, 1!4F, inasmuchas he opened said boxes not the presence of thedivision superintendent of schools of #5lan, theprovincial auditor, and the authoried representatives
of the Eacionalista (arty, the Liberal (arty and the%itiens (arty, as reuired in the aforesaid resolutions,*hich are punishable under Section 4 of the evised/lection %ode and ule = of the ules of %ourt.-asangcay *as then the provincial treasurer of #5landesignated by the %ommission in its resolution in %ase%/9Eo. AFC, part :: A &b' thereof, to ta5e charge of thereceipt and custody of the o+cial ballots, electionforms and supplies, as *ell as of their distribution,among the di
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
22/268
:n compliance *ith the summons issued to -asangcayand his co9respondents to appear and sho* cause *hythey should not be punished for contempt on the basisof the aforementioned charge, they all appearedbefore the %ommission on October A1, 1!4F and
entered a plea of not guilty. Thereupon, evidence *aspresented by both the prosecution and the defense,and on 6ecember 1, 1!4F the %ommission renderedits decision 3nding -asangcay and his co9respondent-olo guilty as charged and sentencing each of them tosu
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
23/268
&Slade (er5ins v. 6irector of (risons, 4 (hil.,AF1@ >.S. v. Lee Ioc, B (hil., F@ 'n )eSotto,= O.G., A4FC@ 'n )eNelly, (hil., !=='. Theexercise of this po*er has al*ays been regardedas a necessary incident and attribute of courts
&Slade (er5ins v. 6irector of (risons, '"id.'. :tsexercise by administrative bodies has beeninvariably limited to ma5ing e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
24/268
:G.R. Nos. #966#6%. No;/8/( 22, 1990. 'a(ona4o( Petitioner.
Pato A. Ga*o 4o( LT Co.
SYLLAUS
1. %:):L L#2@ %O--OE %#:/S@ %/T:":%#T/ O"(>$L:% %OE)/E:/E%/@ $O#6 O" T#ES(OT#T:OE,G:)/E TI/ (O2/ #E6 6:S%/T:OE TO 6/%// O/">S/ TI/ %#E%/LL#T:OE O" TI/ S#-/ :"S>((OT/6 2:TI /):6/E%/@ OTI/ $#S/S "O $OTS6/%:S:OES. 8 There can be no dispute that the la*
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
25/268
&Section 1 &n' of the (ublic Service #ct' gives to the$OT &successor of the (ublic Service %ommission'ample po*er and discretion to decree or refuse thecancellation of a certi3cate of public convenienceissued to an operator as long as there is evidence to
support its action, as held by this %ourt in a long line ofcases, *herein it *as even intimated that in matters ofthis nature so long as the action is ?usti3ed this %ourt*ill not substitute its discretion for that of the $OT &see
Javier, /t. #l. v. de Leon, /t #l., 1C! (hil. F41@ Santiago:ce (lant and %o. v. Laho, F (hil. AA1@ aymundo
Transportation %o. v. %edra, !! (hil. !!@ -anila Pello*Taxicab %o., :nc. v. %astelo, 1C (hil. B!=@ 6agupan :ce(lant %o., :nc. v. de Lucero, /t. #l. citing -anila Pello*
Taxicab %o.@ :nc., /t #l., v. #raullo, B= O.G. A=1@Sambrano v. Eorthern Luon Transportation %o., B4
O.G. AAF1'. The $OT, in refusing to cancel thecerti3cates of public convenience of $LT$, relied onthese pieces of evidence@ &1' the letter of $LT$ datedSeptember 1, 1!FA@ &A' reports0complaints from thegeneral public@ &B' reports of its 3eldmen@ and &=' itso*n observations acuired thru inspection trips, all of*hich form part of its records. #s 2e have ruledbefore, the $OT is particularly a fact93nding body*hose decisions on uestions regarding certi3cates ofpublic convenience are in;uenced not only by the factsas disclosed by the evidence in the case before it but
also by the reports of its 3eld agents and inspectorsthat are periodically submitted to it &see La -allorcaand (ampanga $us %o., :nc. v. -ercado, G.. Eo. L91!1AC, Eovember A!, 1!4, 14 S%# B=B'. Li5e*ise,the $OT has the po*er to ta5e into consideration theresult of its o*n observation and investigation of thematter submitted to it for decision, in connection *ithother evidence presented at the hearing of a case&-anila Pello* Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. E. Q $.
Stables %o., :nc., C (hil. 41 citing -anila Pello*Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. 6anon, 4 (hil. F4@ -anila/lectric %o. v. $alagtas, 4 (hil. =A!'.
A. :6.@ :6.@ :6.@ -// "#:L>/ TO T/-(O#:LP
O(/#T/ TI/ T#ES(OT#T:OE L:E/S SIO>L6 EOT$/ # GO>E6 "O TI/ %#E%/LL#T:OE TI//O". 8
Ta5ing into consideration $LT$s letter datedSeptember 1, 1!FA, it acted in good faith *hen it didnot immediately operate on those lines and notbecause of a design to pre?udice public interest.%erti3cates of public convenience involve investmentof a big amount of capital, both in securing thecerti3cate and in maintaining the operation of the linescovered thereby, and mere failure to operatetemporarily should not be a ground for cancellation,
especially as *hen, in the case at bar, the suspensionof the service *as directly caused by circumstancesbeyond the operators control &(angasinan
Transportation %o. v. ".". Ialili, /t #l., !4 (hil. !='.
B. :6.@ :6.@ :6.@ -#P EOT $/ )#L:6LP /)ON/6 :E TI/#$S/E%/ O" 2:LL">L #E6 %OET>-#%:O>S ):OL#T:OE$P TI/ >T:L:TP O(/#TO@ $OT G>:6/6 $P (>$L:%E/%/SS:TP #E6 %OE)/E:/E%/ #S (:-#P%OES:6/#T:OES. 8 :n absence of sho*ing that thereis *illful and contumacious violation on the part of the
utility operator, no certi3cate of public conveniencemay be validly revo5ed &-ananal v. #use?o, /t #l.,G.. Eo. L9B1C4, #ugust =, 1!, 1= S%# B'. -oreimportantly, *hat cannot be ignored is that the needsof the public are paramount, as elucidated by the $OTin its order. :n the exercise of its po*er to grant orcancel certi3cates of public convenience, the $OT isguided by public necessity and convenience asprimary considerations &see 6ion v. (ublic Service
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
26/268
%ommission, /t #l., G.. Eo. L9B=AC, #pril BC, 1!FB,4C S%# 4CC'.
! E C I S I O N
'E!IAL!EA,J.?
This is a petition for certiorariand0or prohibition *ithprayer for the issuance of a restraining order see5ingto annul the order of public respondent $oard of
Transportation dated January =, 1!F!.
The antecedent facts, as culled from the pleadings, are
as follo*s7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library
On #ugust 4, 1!F1, the then (ublic Service%ommission granted certi3cates of public convenienceto private respondent $atangas Laguna Tayabas $us%o., :nc. &$LT$' for the operation of t*elve &1A' busunits on the (asay %ity 8 Legaspi %ity line &%ase Eo.FC94F=!'@ six &' bus units on the (asay %ity 8 $ulan,Sorsogon line &%ase Eo. FC94F4C', and ten &1C' busunits on the (asay %ity 8 Sorsogon line &%ase Eo. FC94F41' &pp. 4!9=, ollo'.chanrobles la* library 7 red
On #pril =, 1!F4, petitioner (antranco South /xpress,:nc. &(#ET#E%O' 3led a complaint against $LT$before public respondent $oard of Transportation&$OT', doc5eted as %ase Eo. F49B19%, charging it *ithabandonment of services on said lines from #ugust,1!F1 to #pril, 1!F4 and praying for the cancellation of$LT$s certi3cates of public convenience &pp. !9FC,ollo'.
On -arch A=, 1!F, in %ases Eos. FC94F=!, FC94F4Cand FC94F41, (#ET#E%O 3led an urgent petitioncharging $LT$ *ith abandoning said services from-arch, 1!F4 to -arch, 1!F and reiterating its prayer
for the cancellation of the certi3cates of publicconvenience &pp. FF9F, ollo'.
$LT$ did not 3le any *ritten ans*er either to thecomplaint in %ase Eo. F49B19% or to the urgent petitionin %ases Eos. FC94F=!, FC94F4C, and FC94F41. ather,in a -otion dated July A, 1!F, $LT$, referring tohearings before the $OT on -arch A=, 1!FF and #pril1B, 1!FF, alleged &pp. 1A91A,ollo'7?gc7chanrobles.com.ph
DB. #t said hearings, espondent admitted non9operation of the bus services authoried in %ases Eos.FC94F=!,FC94F4C and FC94F41 and thus the need for%omplainant to present evidence in both proceedingsmay be dispensed *ith.
D=. #t the said hearings, espondent advanceda+rmative defenses on %omplainants >rgent -otionof -arch A=, 1!FF &sic' *hich espondent, in itse?oinder of -ay 4, 1!FF, adopted also as itsa+rmative defenses *ith respect to %ase Eo. F49B19%.
D$rie;y, these a+rmative defenses are7chanrob1esvirtual 1a* library
&a' espondent actually registered under (>$denomination all the t*enty eight &A' busesauthoried for operation under the certi3cates soughtto be cancelled nnex R#'@
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
27/268
&b' The follo*ing supervening factors *hich arebeyond espondents control ho*ever, arose andprevented espondent from operating the lines atissue7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library
&1' The gasoline crises starting 1!F1@
&A' The destructive big ;oods in 1!FA and 1!F=@
&B' The general troubled conditions of peace and orderin 1!F1 and 1!FA leading to the declaration of martialla*@
&=' Starting 1!FB and on to 1!F=,1!F4 and 1!F thenearly prohibitive cost of units and spare parts &ifavailable at all', the higher costs of operations and
acute tire shortages particularly in 1!F=@
&4' #ll these, *hich are of general public 5no*ledgeand 5no*n to the $oard, brought the *hole landtransportation industry in *hat might be termed as inextremis condition causing the ban5ruptcy of manyoperators, big and small@ and
&' %omplainant (antranco South /xpress, :nc. *as notspared the ill e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
28/268
DA. Orders the 3ne of (1C,CCC.CC imposed above to bepaid to this $oard *ithin ten &1C' days from receipt byit of a copy of this Order and declares the consolidatedcomplaints 3led in the above9entitled cases closed and
terminated.
D"ailure of respondent0applicant to comply *ith any ofthe foregoing reuirements shall be consideredsu+cient cause for this $oard to *ithdra* theauthority herein granted.
DSO O6//6.Dcrala* virtua1a* library
:t rationalied the non9cancellation of $LT$scerti3cates of public convenience, as follo*s &pp. 1A
#91BB, ollo'7chanrobles virtual la*library
DObviously, cancellation of a certi3cate of publicconvenience is a penalty of the severest degree. :tsconseuences are su
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
29/268
DThis leads us into discussing *hat the public need isin the areas covered by the certi3cates of publicconvenience in uestion.
DThe $oard, in its desire to be responsive to public
need, has al*ays 5ept itself informed of actual andlatest transportation conditions in the provinces,including the $icol region. Thru reports0complaintsfrom the general public, from reports of its 3eldmen,and from its o*n personal observations acuired thruinspection trips, this $oard is a*are that buses *hichare operating are very much less than *hat has beenauthoried. This *as o+cially con3rmed in a meetingof provincial and -etro9-anila bus operators held in-alacaang (alace on June A1, 1!F, presided over byIis /xcellency, (resident "erdinand /. -arcos himself.
D:n $icol region, for instance, in the past four years&1!F=, 1!F4, 1!F and 1!FF' (S/: &(#ET#E%O'registered and operated less than 4C of itsauthoried units7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library
Pear #uthoried >nits egistered
1!F= = 14! units
1!F4 ¬ available' 1A units
1!F =4B AAF units
1!FF == AA1 units
and among the lines not so operated or only partiallyoperated, either through expiration of certi3cates,petitioned suspension of operation or for sheer lac5 ofunits are long distance lines from -anila to the
provinces of Mueon, %amarines Eorte, %amarines Sur,#lbay and Sorsogon aside from lines serving inter9provincial and local needs in Mueon province and the*hole $icol egion. #mong them are the follo*inglines *hich are concurrert in *hole or in portions of the
lines (asay %ity 8 Legaspi %ity, (asay 8 Sorsogon and(asay 8 $ulan, all the said lines reuiring theoperation of some t*o hundred t*enty seven &AAF'buses7?gc7chanrobles.com.ph
Dx x x
DThe non9operation by (S/: &(#ET#E%O' of thesemore than t*o hundred &ACC' buses clearly reuiresthe entry or operation of an eual number of buses.#ny prohibition against an e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
30/268
designed to tap the rich natural resources of theregion.Dcrala* virtua1a* library
Ience, the present petition.
On January 14, 1!F!, 2e issued a temporaryrestraining order en?oining the $OT from enforcing its
January =, 1!F! order &pp. 1=F91=, ollo'.chanroblesvirtual la*library
:n this petition, (#ET#E%O imputes grave abuse ofdiscretion, acting *ithout or in excess of ?urisdiction onthe part of the $OT *hen it issued the uestionedorder, as indicated by several circumstance that itenumerated. #mong these, only the follo*ing deservediscussion7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library
1' refusal to cancel the certi3cates of publicconvenience of $LT$ despite its abandonment and0ornon9operation on the sub?ect lines since #ugust 4,1!F1 up to the present@
A' using as basis for its uestioned order $LT$s letterdated September A, 1!FA &*herein it ?usti3ed its non9operation on account of un3nished portions of theroad' *hich is not part of the records of the case@ and
B' resorting to extraneous facts not supported bycompetent evidence as basis for its conclusion that thedemand of public need *ould be more paramount thanthe need to penalie $LT$.
"or its part, $LT$ contends that7chanrob1es virtual1a* library
1' the cancellation or non9cancellation of its
certi3cates of public convenience is addressed to thesound discretion of the $OT@
A' its letter dated September 1, 1!FA &erroneouslyreferred to as the letter dated September A, 1!FA'
forms part of the $OTs records@ and
B' the $OT acted correctly in the exercise of its sounddiscretion and *ithin its ?urisdiction *hen it found thatthe demand of public need *ould be paramount thanthe need to penalie it &$LT$'.
There can be no dispute that the la* &Section 1 &n' ofthe (ublic Service #ct' gives to the $OT &successor ofthe (ublic Service ommission' U ample po*er anddiscretion to decree or refuse the cancellation of a
certi3cate of public convenience issued to an operatoras long as there is evidence to support its action, asheld by this %ourt in a long line of cases, *herein it*as even intimated that in matters of this nature solong as the action is ?usti3ed this %ourt *ill notsubstitute its discretion for that of the $OT &see Javier,/t. #l. v. de Leon, /t #l., 1C! (hil. F41@ Santiago :ce(lant and %o. v. Laho, F (hil. AA1@ aymundo
Transportation %o. v. %edra, !! (hil. !!@ -anila Pello*Taxicab %o., :nc. v. %astelo, 1C (hil. B!=@ 6agupan :ce(lant %o., :nc. v. de Lucero, /t. #l. citing -anila Pello*
Taxicab %o.@ :nc., /t #l., v. #raullo, B= O.G. A=1@Sambrano v. Eorthern Luon Transportation %o., B4O.G. AAF1'. The $OT, in refusing to cancel thecerti3cates of public convenience of $LT$, relied onthese pieces of evidence@ &1' the letter of $LT$ datedSeptember 1, 1!FA@ &A' reports0complaints from thegeneral public@ &B' reports of its 3eldmen@ and &=' itso*n observations acuired thru inspection trips, all of*hich form part of its records. #s 2e have ruled
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
31/268
before, the $OT is particularly a fact93nding body*hose decisions on uestions regarding certi3cates ofpublic convenience are in;uenced not only by the factsas disclosed by the evidence in the case before it butalso by the reports of its 3eld agents and inspectors
that are periodically submitted to it &see La -allorcaand (ampanga $us %o., :nc. v. -ercado, G.. Eo. L91!1AC, Eovember A!, 1!4, 14 S%# B=B'. Li5e*ise,the $OT has the po*er to ta5e into consideration theresult of its o*n observation and investigation of thematter submitted to it for decision, in connection *ithother evidence presented at the hearing of a case&-anila Pello* Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. E. Q $.Stables %o., :nc., C (hil. 41 citing -anila Pello*
Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. 6anon, 4 (hil. F4@ -anila/lectric %o. v. $alagtas, 4 (hil. =A!'.
Ta5ing into consideration $LT$s letter datedSeptember 1, 1!FA, it acted in good faith *hen it didnot immediately operate on those lines and notbecause of a design to pre?udice public interest.%erti3cates of public convenience involve investmentof a big amount of capital, both in securing thecerti3cate and in maintaining the operation of the linescovered thereby, and mere failure to operatetemporarily should not be a ground for cancellation,especially as *hen, in the case at bar, the suspension
of the service *as directly caused by circumstancesbeyond the operators control &(angasinan
Transportation %o. v. ".". Ialili, /t #l., !4 (hil. !='. :nthe absence of sho*ing that there is *illful andcontumacious violation on the part of the utilityoperator, no certi3cate of public convenience may bevalidly revo5ed &-ananal v. #use?o, /t #l., G.. Eo. L9B1C4, #ugust =, 1!, 1= S%# B'. -oreimportantly, *hat cannot be ignored is that the needs
of the public are paramount, as elucidated by the $OTin its order. :n the exercise of its po*er to grant orcancel certi3cates of public convenience, the $OT isguided by public necessity and convenience asprimary considerations &see 6ion v. (ublic Service
%ommission, /t #l., G.. Eo. L9B=AC, #pril BC, 1!FB,4C S%# 4CC'.chanrobles la*library 7 rednad
#pparently, (#ET#E%Os purpose in instituting theproceedings for cancellation of $LT$s certi3cates ofpublic convenience is to remove it &$LT$' as acompetitor in the business in *hich they are bothengaged &see (angasinan Transportation %o. v. ".".Ialili, /t #l., supra', *hich is detestable. /xperiencehas demonstrated that healthy competition al*aysredounds to the bene3t of the commuters and the
development of transportation as a *hole.
#%%O6:EGLP, the petition is hereby 6:S-:SS/6. Theorder of the $oard of Transportation dated January =,1!F! is #"":-/6. The temporary restraining orderissued on January 14, 1!F! is L:"T/6.
SO O6//6.
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
32/268
G.R. No. L1%%%& No;/8/( 30, 1962
IN RE CONTE'PT PROCEE!INGS AGAINST
AR'AN!O RA'OS, ESUS L. CAR'ELO, n *s
)a7a)t as C*a(8an o4 t*/ P(o/ Co88tt//,
O@)/ o4 t*/ 'ao( o4 'ana,petitioner9appellant,
vs.
AR'AN!O RA'OS, respondent9appellee.
it# *iscal er!ogenes oncepcion, Jr. or petitioner1
appellant.
Ar!ando )a!os or and in is own "eal as
respondent1appellee.
REGALA,J.:
On "ebruary B, 1!C, the -ayor of -anila issued an
executive order creating a committee Dto investigate
the anomalies involving the license inspectors and
other personnel of the License :nspection 6ivision of
the O+ce of the %ity Treasurer and of the License and
(ermits 6ivision of this O+ce &of the -ayor'.D Ie
named -r. Jesus L. %armelo as chairman of said
committee.
:t appears that the committee issued subpoenas to
#rmando amos, a private citien *or5ing as a
boo55eeper in the %asa de #lba, reuiring him to
appear before it on June B, , !, 14 and 1 and #ugust
= and 11, 1!C, in connection *ith an administrative
case against %risanta /stanislao but that amos, on
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
33/268
*hom the subpoenas *ere duly served, refused to
appear.
%laiming that amos refusal tended Dto impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administrative proceedings,D
petitioner 3led in the %ourt of "irst :nstance of -anila a
petition to declare #rmando amos in contempt. #fter
hearing, during *hich petitioner *as reuired to sho*
apri!a aciecase, the trial court dismissed the
petition. The lo*er court held that there is no la*
empo*ering committees created by municipal mayors
to issue subpoenas and demand that *itnesses testify
under oath. :t also held that to compel amos to testify
*ould be to violate his right against self9incrimination.
:t appears that in a statement given to investigators of
the O+ce of the -ayor, amos admitted having
misappropriated on several occasions, sums of money
given to him by the o*ner of %asa de #lba for the
payment of the latters taxes for 1!491!4! and that
this fact had not been discovered earlier because
amos used to entertain employees in the %ity
Treasurers o+ce at %asa de #lba *here amos *as a
boo55eeper as stated above. The trial court held that
to compel amos to con3rm this statement in the
administrative case against certain employees in the
O+ce of the %ity Treasurer *ould be to compel him to
give testimony that could be used against him in a
criminal case for estafa of *hich the o*ner of %asa de
#lba *as the o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
34/268
Saving the provisions of section one hundred
and t*o of this #ct, any one *ho, *ithout la*ful
excuse, fails to appear upon summons issued
under the authority of the preceding paragraph
or *ho, appearing before any individual or body
exercising the po*er therein de3ned, refuses to
ma5e oath, give testimony, or produce
documents for inspection, *hen thereunto
la*fully reuired, shall be sub?ect to discipline
as in case of contempt of court and upon
application of the individual or body exercising
the po*er in uestion shall be dealt *ith by the
?udge of 3rst instance having ?urisdiction of the
case in the manner provided by la*.
One *ho invo5es this provision of the la* must 3rst
sho* that he has Dauthority to ta5e testimony or
evidenceD before he can apply to the courts for the
punishment of hostile *itnesses. &"rancia v. (ecson, et
al., F (hil. 1CC.'
Eo*, *hat authority to ta5e testimony does
petitioners committee have from *hich the po*er to
cite *itnesses may be implied, pursuant to section
4C
To be sure, there is nothing said in the executive order
of the -ayor creating the committee about such a
grant of po*er. #ll that the order gives to this body is
the po*er to investigate anomalies involving certain
city employees.
(etitioner contends that the -ayor of -anila has the
implied po*er to investigate city o+cials and
employees appointed by him to the end that the po*er
expressly vested in him to suspend and remove such
o+cials of employees &Sec. AA, epublic #ct Eo. =C!'
may be ?ustly and fairly exercised. 2e agree *ith this
proposition and 2e held so in the case
ofPaganlungan v. /e la *uente, = O.G. Eo. 1C, p.
=BBA. $ut 2e do not agree *ith the petitioner that a
delegation of such po*er to investigation implies also
a delegation of the po*er to ta5e testimony or
evidence of *itnesses *hose appearance may be
reuire by the compulsory process of subpoena. Thus,
in denying this po*er to an investigating body in the
O+ce of the -ayor of -anila, 2e said in *rancia v.Pecson, et al., supra7 D2ere do not thin5 the mayor &of
-anila' can delegate or confer the po*ers to
administer oaths, to ta5e testimony, and to issue
subpoenas.D
"urthermore, it is doubtful *hether the provisions of
section 4C of the #dministrative %ode are applicable
to the %ity of -anila as these pertain to national
bureaus or o+ces of the government.
%iting 4C #m. Jur. ==!, petitioner contends that Dthe
po*er of the investigation committee to issue
compulsory process to secure the attendance of
*itnesses undoubtedly exists since only
complimentary to the po*er of the mayor to
investigate, suspend and remove city o+cers and
employees, supra, is the recognied rule that *here
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
35/268
the statute grants a right, it also confers by implication
every particular po*er necessary for the exercise
thereof.D There is no merit in the argument. :n the 3rst
place, the authority cited spea5s of statutory, grant of
po*er to a body. Iere, 2e have seen that *hatever
po*er may be claimed by petitioners committee may
only be traced to the po*er of the -ayor to investigate
as implied from his po*er to suspend or remove
certain city employees. There is no statutory grant of
po*er to investigate to petitioners committee.
:n the second place, even granting that the -ayor has
the implied po*er to reuire the appearance of
*itnesses before him, the rule, as noted earlier, is that
the -ayor can not delegate this po*er to a body li5ethe committee of the petitioner. &"rancia v. (ecson, et
al., supra.'
Lastly, 4C #m. Jur. Sec. =A, p. =4C itself admits an
exception to the rule invo5ed by the petitioner. Thus, it
is stated that D*here the liberty and property of
persons are sought to be brought *ithin the operation
of a po*er claimed to be impliedly granted by an act
because necessary to its due execution, the case must
be clearly seen to be *ithin those intended to be
reached.D Iere, no less than the liberty of #rmando
amos is involved in the claim of the committee to the
right to cite *itnesses.
2e hold, therefore, that petitioners committee has no
po*er to cite *itnesses to appear before it and to as5
for their punishment in case of refusal. This conclusion
ma5es it unnecessary for >s to pass upon the other
error assigned by petitioner as having been allegedly
committed by the trial court.
2I//"O/, the decision of the %ourt of "irst :nstance
of -anila is hereby a+rmed, *ithout pronouncement
as to costs.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, La"rador, oncepcion, )e#es,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, /izon and -aalintal,
JJ.,concur.
Bengzon, .J.,too5 no part.
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
36/268
G.R. No. L292%# No;/8/( 2%, 19%$
SEC. UIRICO P. EANGELISTA, n *s )a7a)t as
S/)(/ta( o4 t*/ P(/sd/nta Ag/n) on R/4o(8s
and Go;/(n8/nt O7/(atons, and t*/
PRESI!ENTIAL AGENCY ON RE-OR'S AN!
GOERN'ENT OPERATIONS BPARGO, petitioner,
vs.
ON. ILARION U. ARENCIO, as P(/sdng udg/,Cou(t o4 -(st Instan)/ o4 'ana, (an)* ==III,
and -ERNAN!O 'ANALASTAS, Assstant Ct
Pu) S/(;)/ O@)/( o4 'ana, and ALL OTER
CITY O--ICIALS AN! E'PLOYEES SI'ILARLY
SITUATE!, respondents.
Ofce o te (olicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, 'st.
Assistant (olicitor General 3s!eraldo 7!ali and
(olicitor Bernardo P. Pardo or petitioners.
Gregorio A. 32ercito and *eli0 . avez or
respondents.
'ARTIN,J.:
This is an original action for certiorariand prohibition
*ith preliminary in?unction, under ule 4 of the ules
of %ourt, see5ing to annul and set aside the order of
respondent Judge, the Ionorable Iilarion J. Jarencio,(residing Judge of the %ourt of "irst :nstance of -anila,
dated July 1, 1!, in %ivil %ase Eo. FBBC4, entitled
D"ernando -analastas vs. Sec. amon 6. $agatsing,
etc.D, *hich reads as follo*s7
:T :S O6//6 that, upon the 3ling of a
bond in the amount of (4,CCC.CC, let the
*rit of preliminary in?unction prayed for
by the petitioner Vprivate respondentW be
issued restraining the respondents
VpetitionersW, their agents,
representatives, attorneys and0or other
persons acting in their behalf from further
issuing subpoenas in connection *ith
the act18ndinginvestigations to the
petitioner Vprivate respondentW and from
instituting contempt proceedings against
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
37/268
the petitioner Vprivate respondentW under
Section 4C of the evised #dministrative
%ode. &Stress supplied'.
(ursuant to his special po*ers and duties under
Section = of the evised #dministrative %ode,1the
(resident of the (hilippines created the (residential
#gency on eforms and Government Operations
&(#GO' under /xecutive Order Eo. = of January F,
1!.2(urposedly, he charged the #gency *ith the
follo*ing functions and responsibilities73
b. To investigate all activities involving or
a
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
38/268
:T :S O6//6 that, upon the 3ling of a
bond in the amount of (4,CCC.CC, let the
*rit of preliminary in?unction prayed for
by the petitioner Vprivate respondentW be
issued restraining the respondents
VpetitionersW, their agents,
representatives, attorneys and0or other
persons acting in their behalf from further
issuing subpoenas in connection *ith
the act18ndinginvestigations to the
petitioner Vprivate respondentW and from
instituting contempt proceedings against
the petitioner Vprivate respondentW under
Section 4BC of the evised #dministrative
%ode. &Stress supplied'.
$ecause of this, petitioners 4 elevated the matter
direct to >s *ithout a motion for reconsideration 3rst
3led on the fundamental submission that the Order is
a patent nullity.6
#s unfurled, the dominant issue in this case is *hether
the #gency, acting thru its o+cials, en?oys the
authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact9
3nding investigations.
:t has been essayed that the life blood of the
administrative process is the ;o* of fact, the
gathering, the organiation and the analysis of
evidence.%:nvestigations are useful for all
administrative functions, not only for rule ma5ing,
ad?udication, and licensing, but also for prosecuting,
for supervising and directing, for determining general
policy, for recommending, legislation, and for purposes
no more speci3c than illuminating obscure areas to
3nd out *hat if anything should be done.n
administrative agency may be authoried to ma5e
investigations, not only in proceedings of a legislative
or ?udicial nature, but also in proceedings *hose sole
purpose is to obtain information upon *hich future
action of a legislative or ?udicial nature may be
ta5en9and may reuire the attendance of *itnesses
in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. :t may
conduct general inuiries into evils calling for
correction, and to report 3ndings to appropriate bodies
and ma5e recommendations for actions. 10
2e recognie that in the case before >s, petitioner
#gency dra*s its subpoena po*er from /xecutive
Order Eo. =, para. 4 *hich, in an e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
39/268
one another *ith the principal aim of meeting the very
purpose of the creation of the #gency, *hich is to
forestall and erode nefarious activities and anomalies
in the civil service. To hold that the subpoena po*er of
the #gency is con3ned to mere uasi9?udicial or
ad?udicatory functions *ould therefore imperil or
inactiviate the #gency in its investigatory functions
under
sub9paragraphs &e' and &h'. -ore than that, the
enabling authority itself &/xecutive Order Eo. =, para.
4' 3xes no distinction *hen and in *hat function
should the subpoena po*er be exercised. Similarly, 2e
see no reason to depart from the established rule that
forbids di
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
40/268
relevant to issues on litigations it does not follo* that
an administrative agency charged *ith seeing that the
la*s are enforced may not have and exercise po*ers
of original inuiry. The administrative agency has the
po*er of inuisition *hich is not dependent upon a
case or controversy in order to get evidence, but can
investigate merely on suspicion that the la* is being
violated or even ?ust because it *ants assurance that
it is not. 2hen investigative and accusatory duties are
delegated by statute to an administrative body, it, too
may ta5e steps to inform itself as to *hether there is
probable violation of the la*. 21:n sum, it may be
stated that a subpoena meets the reuirements for
enforcement if the inuiry is &1' *ithin the authority of
the agency@ &A' the demand is not too inde3nite@ and&B' the information is reasonably relevant. 22
There is no doubt that the fact93nding investigations
being conducted by the #gency upon s*orn
statements implicating certain public o+cials of the
%ity Government of -anila in anomalous
transactions 23fall *ithin the #gencys sphere of
authority and that the information sought to be elicited
from respondent "ernando -analastas, of *hich he is
claimed to be in possession, 2#is reasonably relevant
to the investigations.
2e are mindful that the privilege against self9
incrimination extends in administrative investigations,
generally, in scope similar to adversary
proceedings. 2$:n a"al v. $apunan, Jr., 26the %ourt
ruled that since the administrative charge of
unexplained *ealth against the respondent therein
may result in the forfeiture of the property under the
#nti9Graft and %orrupt (ractices #ct, a proceeding
criminal or penal in nature, the complainant cannot
call the respondent to the *itness stand *ithout
encroaching upon his constitutional privilege against
self9incrimination. Later, in Pascual, Jr. v. Board o
-edical 30a!iners, 2%the same approach *as follo*ed
in the administrative proceedings against a medical
practitioner that could possibly result in the loss of his
privilege to practice the medical profession.
Eevertheless, in the present case, 2e 3nd that
respondent "ernando -analastas is not facing any
administrative charge. 2&Ie is merely cited as a
*itness in connection *ith the fact93ndinginvestigation of anomalies and irregularities in the %ity
Government of -anila *ith the ob?ect of submitting
the assembled facts to the (resident of the (hilippines
or to 3le the corresponding charges. 29Since the only
purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis
of future action, any unnecessary extension of the
privilege *ould thus be un*ise.30#ny*ay, by all
means, respondent "ernando -analastas may contest
any attempt in the investigation that tends to
disregard his privilege against self9incrimination.
# uestion of constitutional dimension is raised by
respondents on the inherent po*er of the (resident of
the (hilippines to issue subpoena. 31-ore tersely
stated, respondents *ould no* challenge, in a
collateral *ay, the validity of the basic authority,
/xecutive Order Eo. =, as amended in part by
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
41/268
/xecutive Order Eo. . >nfortunately, for reasons of
public policy, the constitutionality of executive orders,
*hich are commonly said to have the force and e
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
42/268
the egister of /ligibles in the O+ce for %entral
(ersonnel ecords revealed Dthat emolonas name is
not in the list of passing and failing examinees, and
that the list of examinees for 6ecember 1C, 1!! does
not include the name of emolona. "urthermore,
/xamination Eo. C1A4 as indicated in her report of
rating belongs to a certain -arlou %. -adelo, *ho too5
the examination in %agayan de Oro and got a rating of
4.CC.D4
6uring the preliminary investigation conducted by
Jaime G. (asion, 6irector ::, %ivil Service "ield O+ce,
Lucena %ity, Mueon, only petitioner emolona
appeared. Ie signed a *ritten statement of
facts
regarding the issuance of the uestioned eportof ating of -rs. emolona, *hich is summaried in
the -emorandumFsubmitted by 6irector (asion as
follo*s7
DB.1 That sometime in the 3rst *ee5 of
September, 1!!C, *hile riding in a Napalaran
Transit $us from Sta. %ru, Laguna on his *ay to
San (ablo %ity, he met one #tty. Iad?i Salupadin
&this is ho* it sounded' *ho happened to be
sitting beside him@
B.A That a conversation bro5e out bet*een them
until he *as able to con3de his problem to #tty.
Salupadin about his *ife having di+culty in
acuiring an eligibility@
B.B That #tty. Salupadin *ho represented
himself as *or5ing at the $atasan, o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
43/268
B. That from 1! to 1!, -r. #merica *as
able to get six &' chec5s at (A,CC.CC each plus
bonus of Eery %. emolona@
B.! That -r. #merica got mad at them. #nd
*hen he felt that -r. #merica *ould verify the
authenticity of his *ifes eport of ating, he
burned the original.D
"urthermore, emolona admitted that he *as
responsible in acuiring the alleged fa5e eligibility,
that his *ife has no 5no*ledge thereof, and that he did
it because he *anted them to be together. $ased on
the foregoing, 6irector (asion recommended the 3ling
of the appropriate administrative action againstemolona but absolved -rs. Eery emolona from any
liability since it has not been sho*n that she *illfully
participated in the commission of the o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
44/268
exonerated of the charges. #ccordingly, Eery
emolona is automatically reinstated to her
former position as Teacher *ith bac5 salaries
and other bene3ts.D
On appeal, the %ourt of #ppeals rendered its
uestioned decision dismissing the petition for revie*
3led by herein petitioner emolona. Iis motion for
reconsideration and0or ne* trial *as li5e*ise denied.
Ience, this petition for revie*.
(etitioner submits that the %ourt of #ppeals erred7
D1. in denying petitioners motion for ne* trial@
A. in holding that petitioner is liable for
dishonesty@ and
B. in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner
for an o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
45/268
Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph &A',
Section 1A of the $ill of ights applies only to
admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to
those made in an administrative investigation.1A
2hile investigations conducted by an administrative
body may at times be a5in to a criminal proceeding,
the fact remains that under existing la*s, a party in an
administrative inuiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and
of the respondents capacity to represent himself, and
no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being
investigated *ith counsel. :n an administrative
proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging
the services of counsel or not. This is clear from theprovisions of Section BA, #rticle ):: of epublic #ct Eo.
AAC &other*ise 5no*n as the %ivil Service #ct' and
Section B!, paragraph A, ule H:) &on discipline' of the
Omnibus ules :mplementing $oo5 ) of /xecutive
Order Eo. A!A &other*ise 5no*n as the #dministrative
%ode of 1!F'. Thus, the right to counsel is not al*ays
imperative in administrative investigations because
such inuiries are conducted merely to determine
*hether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure
against erring public o+cers and employees, *ith the
purpose of maintaining the dignity of government
service. #s such, the hearing conducted by the
investigating authority is not part of a criminal
prosecution.1B
:n the case at bar, emolona *as not accused of any
crime in the investigation conducted by the %S% 3eld
o+ce. The investigation *as conducted for the
purpose of ascertaining the facts and *hether there is
a prima facie evidence su+cient to form a belief that
an o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
46/268
have been dismissed for cause. This proposition is
untenable.
:t cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a
grave o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
47/268
motive or bad faith *as ever imputed to 6irector
(asion *ho conducted the investigation. The
presumption that o+cial duty has been regularly
performed remains unrebutted.
The transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes
ta5en during the formal hearing before the %S% is
entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the %ourt
of #ppeals. evised #dministrative %ircular Eo. 19!4 of
this %ourt clearly states that in resolving appeals from
uasi9?udicial agencies, it is *ithin the discretion of the
%ourt of #ppeals to have the original records of the
proceedings under revie* transmitted to it.AC)erily,
the %ourt of #ppeals decided the merits of the case on
the bases of the uncontroverted facts and admissionscontained in the pleadings 3led by the parties.
2e li5e*ise 3nd no merit in the contention of
emolona that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh
considering that there *as no damage caused to the
government since the certi3cate of rating *as never
used to get an appointment for his *ife, Eery
emolona. #lthough no pecuniary damage *as
incurred by the government, there *as still falsi3cation
of an o+cial document that constitutes gross
dishonesty *hich cannot be countenanced,
considering that he *as an accountable o+cer and
occupied a sensitive position.A1The %ode of %onduct
and /thical Standards for (ublic O+cials and
/mployees enunciates the State policy of promoting a
high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the
public service.AA
2I//"O/, the decision appealed from is hereby
#"":-/6 in toto.
SO O6//6.
G.R. No. #3#9 S/7t/8/( 2#, 190&
TE UNITE! STATES,plainti
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
48/268
:n the %ourt of "irst :nstance of the city of -anila the
defendant *as charged *ithin a violation of
paragraphs FC and B of %ircular Eo. B!F of the :nsular
%ollector of %ustoms, duly published in the O+cial
Gaette and approved by the Secretary of "inance and
Justice.1#fter a demurrer to the complaint of the
lighter -aude, he *as moving her and directing her
movement, *hen heavily laden, in the (asig iver, by
bamboo poles in the hands of the cre*, and *ithout
steam, sail, or any other external po*er. (aragraph FC
of %ircular Eo. B!F reads as follo*s7
Eo heavily loaded casco, lighter, or other similar
craft shall be permitted to move in the (asig
iver *ithout being to*ed by steam or movedby other adeuate po*er.
(aragraph B reads, in part, as follo*s7
"or the violation of any part of the foregoing
regulations, the persons o
-
7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)
49/268
both such 3ne and imprisonment, at the
discretion of the court@ Provided, That violations
of la* may be punished either by the method
prescribed in section seven hereof, or by that
prescribed in this section or by both.
>nder this statute, *hich *as not referred to on the
argument, or in the original briefs, there is no di+culty
in sustaining the regulation of the %ollector as coming
*ithin the terms of section 4. Lighterage, mentioned in
the #ct, is the very business in *hich this vessel *as
engaged, and *hen heavily laden *ith hemp she *as
navigating the (asig iver belo* the $ridge of Spain,
in the city of -anila. This spot is near the mouth of the
river, the doc5s *hereof are used for the purpose ofta5ing on and discharging freight, and *e entertain no
doubt that it *as in right sense a part of the harbor,
*ithout having recourse to the de3nition of paragraph
of %ustoms #dministrative %ircular Eo. 1B, *hich
reads as follo*s7
The limits of a harbor for the purpose of
licensing vessels as herein prescribed &for the
lighterage and harbor business' shall be
considered to include its con;uent navigable
rivers and la5es, *hich are navigable during any
season of the year.
The necessity con3ding to some local authority the
framing, changing, and enforcing of harbor regulations
is recognied throughout the *orld, as each region and
each a harbor reuires peculiar use more minute than
could be enacted by the central